A program in ashes

The Boston Globe ^ | 5/8/2002 | Derrick Z. Jackson

[vannrox]

ASTER THAN chain smokers flick away butts, Massachusetts is throwing away the fight on cigarettes.

The adult smoking rate fell from 23 percent to 18 percent from 1993 through 2000.

The smoking rate for pregnant women dropped from 25 to 11 percent from 1990 through 1999.

[jackbill]

Because of the state's aggressive efforts, Massachusetts ended the last decade with 228,000 fewer smokers than it might have otherwise had. While the rest of the nation had a 16 percent drop in per-capita cigarette smoking, Massachusetts experienced a drop of 36 percent (the national figure does not include California, which also had a huge drop).

Derrick Jackson is just another liberal idiot. I lived in Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997. At least three of my closest friends during that time started to buy their cigarettes via the Internet from Indian reservations. Jackson's "statistics" don't count them.

[steveo]

Maybe they should try this, even if you quit smoking you have to continue to pay the smoking tax. Just because you quit, that doesn't mean you won't eventually need state health assistance, right? If you know someone who smokes, you should be taxed because you haven't done enough to get that person to stop. If one of your deceased family members smoked in their lifetime, you need to pay because if they died early, they didn't put enough money into the system and that ain't right. Right?

[redbaiter]

If tobacco-related health care spending is a problem, it is a problem easily solved. Simply announce that starting one year from today the commonwealth will not pay a dime toward health care for anyone who smokes. In the meantime, offer generous assistance to anyone who wants to quit. This way, the state can save a bundle of money, anyone who wants to quit, can, and best of all, the state can stop the social-engineering crap. Oh, and drop all tobacco taxes at the same time you drop health care spending for smokers. Fair, right? Can anyone think of an objection?

[pabianice]

The REAL scandal is that Massachusetts is using most cigarette revenue to fund other Liberal pet projects. Liberals are like fungus: they turn everything they get to slime.

[Fish out of Water]

*Index Bump

[LurkedLongEnough]

the House would rather risk a resurgence in the silent cataclysm of funerals among the poor and the working class

Right, only the "poor" and "working class" smoke butts. With the taxes in Massachusetts, I'm sure just about everyone, except politicians of course, fits into those categories.

[GailA]

Every RED cent of tobacco tax should be put into a fund to pay for smokers health care needs. That way they are pre-paying for their health care. Simple solution..except it would DECREASE the general fund.

[altair]

Can anyone think of an objection?

Certainly. The same should be done for fat people. Being overweight puts people as much at risk as smoking.

[D-fendr]

"smoking costs the Commonwealth $4.4 billion a year in health care and lost productivity, according to the state Department of Public Health" which needs such bald-faced statistics to justify the unholy alliance of government and trial lawyers to rob from both the makers and users of tobacco.

[Great Dane]

Yeah, I wonder if the politicians really are stupid enough to think that all these smokers quit, they have gone underground or on the net.
A couple of years ago, our government was stupid enough to publicize that 400 million cigarettes was bought and payed taxes on, but nobody would admit to have smoked them.

[Great Dane]

Can anyone think of an objection?

Your suggestion is social-engineering too, smokers are already paying for their healthcare and then some, even our government has had to admit that.

[okie01]

"Derrick Jackson is just another liberal idiot."

And how do Massachusetts' tobacco taxes compare to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island? Cigarettes are likely cheaper in all these states. And no place in Massachusetts (excepting only the Cape) is more than thirty miles from a less expensive carton of smokes.

[jackbill]

And how do Massachusetts' tobacco taxes compare to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island? Cigarettes are likely cheaper in all these states.

The latest data that I've seen shows that Vermont and New Hampshire have lower cigarette taxes than Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island are about the same as MA and New York is about double that of MA. Connecticut is a bit lower, but remember, Connecticut is a tobacco growing state. Conflict of interest?

[Max McGarrity]

Wonder if Derrick Jackson needs some cheese with that whine....

[redbaiter]

You are correct to point out that cutting off health care subsidies to smokers is another instance of social engineering. This is the only objection I can think of. But, if the government stops taxing tobacco sales at the same time - remember this is a hypothetical example - then I think we have a net gain, because everyone gets a piece of their economic freedom back.

[Great Dane]

remember this is a hypothetical example - then I think we have a net gain, because everyone gets a piece of their economic freedom back.

On this we can agree, but it wouldn't be enough to just tinker a little with tobacco taxes, those taxes should be no more than taxes on any other product.

Are we going to include obese people in our little plan, as you know, obesity is more of a health risk than smoking........ on the other hand, why stop there, lets face it most of our illnesses are self-inflicted.

[redbaiter]

Of course you are correct. My little scenario was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Of course the government should stop playing the social engineer, period. My little 'any objections?' goad was to to see if anyone would pipe up and defend confiscatory taxes, the nanny state, and social engineering in general. I am something of a Red-baiter after all.

In this connection, I am just now reading Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. This is a devestating critique of socialism and socialists. A must-read.

[Just another Joe]

That progress is suddenly in question. In its haste to solve the state's financial crisis, the House Ways and Means Committee wants to cut the budget of the tobacco control program by 41 percent, from $49 million to $29 million. Some legislators have pledged to restore as much of the cuts as possible. The program's ad campaign was already crippled by a $17 million emergency cut made this winter by Acting Governor Jane Swift.

It's not the progress that is in question. It's the legislatures commitment to it.

The House has voted to raise cigarette taxes by 75 cents, to give Massachusetts the highest state cigarette tax in the nation and drive a pack of cigarettes to around $6, the cost of a glass of wine at a bar. That is good, as studies have long shown that higher taxes result in a decline in smoking. But the effect of taxing cigarettes will surely be muted, if not negated, if the state at the same time is conceding its hard-won ground on education against cigarette companies whose marketing is always at work trying to get around restrictions to hook youth, the poor, and the working class.

If higher taxes result in less smoking then eventually some ONE sucker is going to be paying $500,000 a pack to keep the state in pork money.
And, oh yes, it's only the young, the poor, and the working class that smoke, isn't it?

Cutting the tobacco program by $20 million when the progress of the last 10 years is so clear is a classic case of pound foolishness. The state projects to get $150 million from raising the cigarette tax, but smoking costs the Commonwealth $4.4 billion a year in health care and lost productivity, according to the state Department of Public Health. Even if the state collects $1.51 a pack from cigarettes, each pack costs the health care system $7.65 to keep the smoker alive on respirators, drugs, and hospital beds. Smoking is responsible for 10 percent of health care spending in Massachusetts.

Where they get these figures is beyond me. I'm serious. It's almost like they just make up a HUGE number and then call it out. Sort of like bingo.

When she announced her $17 million emergency cut, Swift said, ''I think our tobacco control programs have been very successful. I think they've been a worthy investment, but I think it's something that we can forgo in these very difficult times to protect other important health care services.''

Time to protect the pork barrel on the backs of smokers.

[Great Dane]

#18...... Thank you for explaining yourself, LOL, didn't think of your name in that context, but I will from now on. :-}

The book you are reading, sounds absolutely facinating.